I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
Sometimes you have to put aside the umbrella and deal with individual cases.
Every banned user isn't the same, nor do they have the same intent, the same motives, or personality. Just because BadGuy1331 is banned for DDoSing Wikimedia, doesn't make me equally bad because we belong to the group of Banned Users. But it's constantly treated as such.
I laugh at JzG's "appeal to ArbCom" post. I *tried* to appeal to ArbCom when I was banned, and they 1) ignored my request and 2) reset my ban counter.
There's no arbcom mailing list. It's near-impossible to reach ArbCom when you're an editor in good standing, much less when you're a banned criminal that everyone hates.
And again, I'm anticipating many replies of "troll" and the like. I invite you to go ahead, Senator McCarthy. Instead of "trolls" and "trolling", why don't we just say "annoyance" and "annoying"? It's the same thing; a degrading insult that can be thrown around by anyone in power without consequence (because branding someone as a troll magically turns them into one, somehow).
I would go on IRC today to talk about things, but OH SHI- I'm banned on IRC because they think I'm a troll, based not on anything I've done on IRC, but based mainly on my Wikipedia ban. And I would also like to mention the fact that I get constant shit on every IRC channel and forum I've ever entered due to someone screaming that I'm a troll and deserve to be banned forever, thus repeating the cycle everywhere. Huzzah, Wikipedia. Huzzah.
--------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
Why is flameviper still allowed to waste our time? Please kick him off the list permanently. We have an encylopedia to write. --sent from sidekick
On 16/11/2007, jwales@imap.wikia.com jwales@imap.wikia.com wrote:
Why is flameviper still allowed to waste our time? Please kick him off the list permanently. We have an encylopedia to write.
wikien-l is still assuming some of the functions of unblock-en-l, even though it shouldn't any more. This is unfortunate.
Flameviper: if you can ignore people getting up your nose, you're 3/4 of the way back to en:wp.
- d.
Hm, well, if it's just your situation we are discussing - I'll have a go with my interpretation. I don't know if it's entirely accurate so feel free to correct me on any points. Your first ban was justified - you appear to admit so yourself ("history of asshattery", "giant shitstorm", etc). Your second - the one where you got unblocked by swaying consensus using a sockpuppet, right? So the blocked sockpuppeteer gets reblocked for using a sockpuppet - I'm not sure what's wrong there. If ArbCom isn't working for you, talk to an admin you trust. Tell them exactly why you've changed, why you won't use socks anymore, why you won't be an asshat. See if they like what you have to say for yourself, and perhaps they'll appeal to ArbCom themselves. A banned user (Qst) recently got himself unbanned this way, and he's doing alright. But trying to get our sympathy by telling us to assume good faith - nah. It's not assume the position, or assume blind faith. AGF is an abstract and ill-defined concept. Give me a good reason, based on, say, an outline of goals you want to achieve if you are unbanned, and I would certainly support unblocking you. This is me judging your case individually, as you ask. I wouldn't support unbanning Amorrow if he planned to write an FA. I don't think you're all bad - or even bad, really. Give us a good reason.
On 16/11/2007, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
Sometimes you have to put aside the umbrella and deal with individual cases.
Every banned user isn't the same, nor do they have the same intent, the same motives, or personality. Just because BadGuy1331 is banned for DDoSing Wikimedia, doesn't make me equally bad because we belong to the group of Banned Users. But it's constantly treated as such.
I laugh at JzG's "appeal to ArbCom" post. I *tried* to appeal to ArbCom when I was banned, and they
- ignored my request
and 2) reset my ban counter.
There's no arbcom mailing list. It's near-impossible to reach ArbCom when you're an editor in good standing, much less when you're a banned criminal that everyone hates.
And again, I'm anticipating many replies of "troll" and the like. I invite you to go ahead, Senator McCarthy. Instead of "trolls" and "trolling", why don't we just say "annoyance" and "annoying"? It's the same thing; a degrading insult that can be thrown around by anyone in power without consequence (because branding someone as a troll magically turns them into one, somehow).
I would go on IRC today to talk about things, but OH SHI- I'm banned on IRC because they think I'm a troll, based not on anything I've done on IRC, but based mainly on my Wikipedia ban. And I would also like to mention the fact that I get constant shit on every IRC channel and forum I've ever entered due to someone screaming that I'm a troll and deserve to be banned forever, thus repeating the cycle everywhere. Huzzah, Wikipedia. Huzzah.
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Speaking for myself, if I was allowed to edit on Wikipedia, I would promise to stay out of trouble, would avoid any controversial issues, and would edit on articles which I have expertise on and can improve. I admit that I made some newbie mistakes when I first started, I apologise, and I have now read the manual and understand how things work. Other people did do some things that upset my experience that they shouldn't have done, but I've already discussed all of that to death, and dealt with it as much as they can be, so that's all over and done with as far as I am concerned. And I am happy to go through having someone mentor me and with some restrictions. I get very upset about the poor quality of some of the articles which I have a great deal of knowledge of, and I feel like correcting them, to improve them, so that they are reflected more accurately for others to see, to use as a reference. I hate teaching schools and seeing kids get educated badly because they have used Wikipedia and get false or poor quality information.
But I am not prepared to give up on my principles, I will not ever accept that Wikipedia is perfect, nor will I ever suggest that Wikipedia is not a serious danger. I think that having inaccurate articles can change our version of truth, and that this is incredibly dangerous, and the most dangerous part of what Wikipedia is. I think that WP:OWN is a very important rule, and that we should be far more vigilant than we are with it. And I think that WP:NOR is regularly misused to suggest that someone that is biased yet has accurate important information has nothing to add. Of course I am biased about topics that I have a degree of expertise with. We all are. That doesn't make the information useless. It is much better to have biased yet accurate and informative information than to have unbiased yet inaccurate and useless dribble. And I would rather see people write about things which they have a degree of expertise in than to simply fiddle around with things that they don't really understand.
I don't know about other people who get banned, but I think that for most cases it is more of a case of a misunderstanding than anything else. Certainly any case that goes through the Arbitration Committee or has any level of discussion is one which can be reversed, provided that an agreement can be reached. Obviously serial spammers, hackers, and people who aim to destroy Wikipedia are beyond reform. But if it is debatable enough that it needed a discussion, then it is worthy of having an appeal.
And I don't think that a banned user should be required to apologise and admit fault in order to have the ban reversed. If you feel that what you did was the right thing, then why should you be forced to lie about that in order to return? We all have our beliefs, and keeping your integrity is important.
On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
Speaking for myself, if I was allowed to edit on Wikipedia, I would promise to stay out of trouble, would avoid any controversial issues, and would edit on articles
I suspect this would prove problematic in practice, c.f. these texts of yours:
http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!717.entry http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!718.entry
While I don't doubt your good intentions, I suspect that anyone who can get kicked off both Wikipedia and Citizendium for the same thing, and then suggests the two are conspiring, is unlikely to be able to work well with others.
- d.
Gosh golly gee. I got banned from Wikipedia Review too - and I own that!
LOL.
For the self same reasons? Not exactly. But you're not very familiar with my case, are you?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:51:58 +0000 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
Speaking for myself, if I was allowed to edit on Wikipedia, I would promise to stay out of trouble, would avoid any controversial issues, and would edit on articles
I suspect this would prove problematic in practice, c.f. these texts of yours:
http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!717.entry http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!718.entry
While I don't doubt your good intentions, I suspect that anyone who can get kicked off both Wikipedia and Citizendium for the same thing, and then suggests the two are conspiring, is unlikely to be able to work well with others.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
Gosh golly gee. I got banned from Wikipedia Review too - and I own that! LOL. For the self same reasons? Not exactly.
But that it keeps happening is somehow everyone else's fault in turn, rather than anything to do with the common individual?
But you're not very familiar with my case, are you?
I'm horribly familiar with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...
And further activity as User:Zordrac and User:Blissyu2.
- d.
I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review
I think it must be that I am just a completely evil person, and you were really doing the world a service, right? I mean there are some people who just deserve to be trodden on, correct? I mean I just keep coming up with these "excuses", which of course actually pan out with actual evidence every single time, but you, the sensible person, are looking for the "hidden meaning" to find out what I am "secretly doing" and you put 2 and 2 together to make 5. You've found that big conspiracy theory you were looking for.
As opposed to, what? That I'm completely honest about everything, and people every time say the same thing you are saying here, "A ha! Look at this person! Can't get along with anyone! Let's go ban them!"
Perhaps I should just lie about who I am and sneak in. Then you'd be fine, wouldn't you?
Or do you think that some people are less than others? Is that the issue?
Maybe its the old Asperger's Syndrome. Or perhaps, actually, its that I am faking it! That everything I do is a cleverly disguised lie! That all of you are being manipulated!
Some maturity would be appreciated, thanks.
On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review
What's the common denominator? You. If you've been independently banned from that many sites (and I've pretty sure they were independent - I really can't see Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review joining forces to attack you...), it's almost certainly your fault. You can't blame anyone else.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:41:30 +0000 "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review
What's the common denominator? You. If you've been independently banned from that many sites (and I've pretty sure they were independent - I really can't see Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review joining forces to attack you...), it's almost certainly your fault. You can't blame anyone else.
I must be evil then. Perhaps you should all just gang up and kill me.
Of course, there are about 1,000 places that I've been to regularly that have never banned me, but hey lets not go there. I mean this is over the course of the past 15 years, and most of them undid the bans soon afterwards.
So what do you think? Any hope? Or am I just someone who is evil that you have to purge from the earth? Is that a good way to run somewhere? Some places do indeed run in that way.
You all should know what happened on Wikipedia Review. Its been discussed quite a lot here. Something to do with Private Musings, and me trying to stop the lies from coming. Darn it, that sure does deserve a ban!
Common denominator indeed! Because I won't put up with abusive people, and I would rather die than see something really rotten being done.
But if you'd rather be someone who would see something disgusting like that occur and just let it fly, just to keep from being banned, then fine.
On Nov 16, 2007 8:54 AM, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
I must be evil then. Perhaps you should all just gang up and kill me.
There's nothing evil or malign or even wrong with not getting along with other people.
We observe that you don't get along with us. We tire of trying to work around that; we ask that you leave.
That's not an aspersion on your character. It's a judgement on the interactions.
If you disagree and feel that you got along with us ok, then I am concerned for your judgement about social situations, but that still doesn't reflect badly on your character.
Whatever your perception of the situation, we just don't want to deal with it anymore. You can leave gracefully if you chose to do so. We can apply increasingly harsher bans/blocks/kicks off mailing lists/etc if you force the issue. But you don't have a right to insist that you can still hang around here and communicate with us.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review
What's the common denominator? You. If you've been independently banned from that many sites (and I've pretty sure they were independent - I really can't see Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review joining forces to attack you...), it's almost certainly your fault. You can't blame anyone else.
I'd suggest that assigning blame is a major part of the problem.
Regardless of where any fault lies, the only person who can substantially affect Adrian's experience across many communities is Adrian.
We are all imperfect, and almost any situation has plenty of blame to go around. Trying to heap it all on one participant might be satisfying, but it rarely advances things. Many people have argued that the world would be a better place if only human nature were different, and they're probably right. But it isn't, so that argument is wasted breath.
Adrian, I'd encourage you to focus on changing yourself and your actions, as that's the only thing that's really in your power. Even if your bad situation is entirely the fault of other people, and even if they accept that, your situation will not improve much: people will go on being people. So give up worrying about past errors, start wherever you are, and push forward, ever forward.
William
Quoting u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au:
I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review
This is a waste of time. Can we ban him from this list please?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:58:09 -0500 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au:
I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review
This is a waste of time. Can we ban him from this list please?
Then that'd make 9 out of 1,000. You must be seen to be doing something legitimate.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:28:45 +0900, "u/n - adrianm" adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review
I think it must be that I am just a completely evil person, and you were really doing the world a service, right?
Not evil, just deluded and very very persistent.
Guy (JzG)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
u/n - adrianm wrote:
I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review
I think it must be that I am just a completely evil person, and you were really doing the world a service, right?
Possibly -- you would know more about your moral turpitude than I. An alternate description might be "utterly impossible to work with, and therefore a waste of time to try to work with."
- -- Sean Barrett | Cacatne ursus in sylvis? sean@epoptic.com |
The problem with what David Gerard says here is that he is missing one important factor: I wasn't ever actually banned from Citizendium. Did everyone check the links that David Gerard provided? Did David Gerard himself actually read them? You see, the reality is that I quit Citizendium in disgust at their providing false information off of Wikipedia, especially after over a month of negotiating to make sure that that wasn't going to happen. Citizendium then determined that by quitting I was asking to be banned, and so it happens. Was I "banned from Citizendium"? No. I quit from Citizendium. If you actually read the links that David Gerard provided, you would find the evidence there.
Also, let's not forget my actual case, where I was banned after less than a week of using Wikipedia, as a newbie. A case with an article with a rather lengthy history of being written falsely, where they can't even manage to get the dates right (insisting that its a 1 day event when it actually lasted for 3 days - quite a discrepancy). As for my version, that I wrote for Citizendium, but then asked them to delete after they added in factual inaccuracies that were copied from Wikipedia, here is the version that I wrote (courtesy of Wikinfo):
http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Port_Arthur_massacre
So we've already got the fact that David Gerard misled a few people about whether I was banned from Citizendium AND about why I was banned from Wikipedia (for being a newbie, and for trying to correct inaccuracies as opposed to some idea that it was for legal threats with an unexplained extension from 1 year, which is already served, to indefinite). But not only that, he's failed to mention the Wikipedia Review link.
Did you all click that link before? The whole Private Musings thing? You'd know all about that. Its been discussed to death here. And you'd know the power struggle on Wikipedia Review that relates to that.
You see, I own Wikipedia Review, hence I can't really be banned from there. They just changed the passwords on me and made it difficult for me to get it back. Why? Because I made Wikipedia Review look bad. Because I exposed some actions by a member of Wikipedia Review to lie to people of Wikipedia. Because I thought that was wrong.
Now, you all get that, don't you? All understand? Or are you still content to quote tiny things out of context and to repeat inaccurate information as fact?
Good way to write an encyclopaedia guys.
Adrian
On 19/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
So we've already got the fact that David Gerard misled a few people about whether I was banned from Citizendium AND
I was quoting your blog.
- d.
The problem with what David Gerard wrote is that it isn't true, most importantly because I didn't get banned from Citizendium. If you followed the links that David Gerard provided, you would find that they prove that I was NOT banned from Citizendium. Instead, the reality is that I quit Citizendium in protest at them inserting factual inaccuracies from Wikipedia in to an article that I had created, in spite of previously promising that they wouldn't do this. I wasn't "kicked off", and suggesting so is quite simply false. I quit. They did interpret my quitting as suggesting that I was asking to be banned, and enforced that, although they have said that I could be unbanned if I wanted to. And it most certainly was NOT for the same reasons as what happened on Wikipedia. It was over the same article, yes, but most certainly not for the same reason.
For anyone who isn't aware of the case, I edited Wikipedia and within a week of my first edit, I was put on a Request for Arbitration, with absolutely no explanation as to what that was, and with no opportunity to defend myself (in theory I could, but I had no idea what to do, so in reality I could not). It was a classic case of Newbie Biting. The reality of the situation is that at that stage Wikipedia was maintaining a factually inaccurate article on the Port Arthur massacre, a topic which I am very much an expert on, and I had attempted to add factual accuracies to the article. Indeed, to this day I have contributed more to that article than anyone else - and I have been banned for 2 years! Nobody else who has more expertise on that topic has ever edited Wikipedia! Indeed, whilst banned a number of administrators have sought my advice for improvements to the article.
If you want to see my version of the article, it is currently located on Wikinfo, and is the version that I submitted to Citizendium:
http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Port_Arthur_massacre
Some things that you might notice is that I have stated, and proven, that the massacre lasted for 3 days, not 1. Wikipedia's article falsely claims right at the front that it was a single day mass murder, something that is factually false, and is easily proven to be false. If Wikipedia can't even get that right, then how can they be trusted with regards to that article? There are over a dozen different factual inaccuracies with that article, which sadly some people refuse to change to be accurate. Times, court proceedings, witnesses, police findings, photographic evidence, other kinds of evidence - all presented falsely on Wikipedia. And the sad part is that in the April 2006 10 year anniversary a number of prominent Australian news reports used that false Wikipedia article as a source. That Wikipedia article has subsequently used a number of these reports as sources for their own inaccurate comments. So it becomes a circular example, where Wikipedia has, in that example, presented false things as fact, and they have subsequently become accepted as fact. This is history-changing, and is very dangerous.
Also, with regards to something else (I won't go in to the whole rest of the absurd arguments raised by various people on this thread), I am the owner of Wikipedia Review, hence I am not really banned, and can't really be banned from the place. They simply changed my passwords, as a power play. It is a little cumbersome to get them back, and at this stage I am letting it slide. And the reason why should be well known to people on this list - I reported to a number of people that Wikipedia Review member Kato was creating a drama on Wikipedia in relation to Private Musings and Robert Black, by presenting false information. Some people on Wikipedia Review felt that I was betraying secrets and betraying their members, so they changed my passwords. It is a really simple thing.
My point in mentioning everything was pretty clear for anyone who can think clearly. YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO CITE A SOURCE. How many people read through things that David Gerard wrote and took them at face value? How many people even bothered to click on the links to check things out? How many people just assumed that I was really banned from Citizendium? How many people just assumed that I am really banned from Wikipedia Review? How many people refused to read anything else on the basis that I had stated that at various times I was banned from a number of other sites?
The point I was trying to make is that people quite often don't check their facts, and they make assumptions. You all proved my point very well, by having very few people reading this list bothering to check their facts.
If you do that on an encyclopaedia, how accurate is it going to be? There exist right now a number of articles which have quality references, but whose content does not match what the references say. Again, using the Port Arthur massacre article as an example, there was a time a year or so ago where one of the references said that Martin Bryant was diagnosed as not being fit to stand trial, yet in quoting the reference the Wikipedia article said that the reference said that he was diagnosed as being fit to stand trial = the exact opposite of what the reference actually said.
We need to be vigilant in checking facts, and not jumping to conclusions.
And remember that if someone is banned, the only thing that you can say for sure is that someone banned them. Unless you are prepared to look at the actual case, you can't make an assumption that they were legitimately banned, or anything else. I am sure that most bans are legitimate, because most bans are merely banning sock puppets or serial spammers and the like. But for any bans which have had some discussion about them, you can't honestly say that it is clear cut.
And why should someone be forced to apologise for things that they didn't actually do?
Adrian
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:51:58 +0000 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
I suspect this would prove problematic in practice, c.f. these texts of yours:
http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!717.entry http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!718.entry
While I don't doubt your good intentions, I suspect that anyone who can get kicked off both Wikipedia and Citizendium for the same thing, and then suggests the two are conspiring, is unlikely to be able to work well with others.
- d.
On 20/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au wrote:
The problem with what David Gerard wrote is that it isn't true, most importantly because I didn't get banned from Citizendium.
And where might he have got the idea that you were banned from Citizendium?
I wonder if, perhaps, it came from this message on this mailing list: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/085490.html
From: "u/n - adrianm" adrianm@octa4.net.au To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:28:45 +0900 Message-ID: web-181164951@octa4.net.au
"I've been banned from (in order): Lintilla, Planes of Existence, Aardwolf, Live Journal, uJournal, Wikipedia, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review"
[headers extracted from my archived copy of the email.]
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:31:55 -0800 (PST), Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
There's no arbcom mailing list. It's near-impossible to reach ArbCom when you're an editor in good standing, much less when you're a banned criminal that everyone hates
False. You can mail the arbitrators at arbcom-l@wikimedia.org
You can also post anonymously, stating who you are, at [[WT:RFAR]].
What you can't do is register a sockpuppet to support yourself without saying that the sockpuppet is you.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 16, 2007 11:31 PM, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
The assumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption. We take it to be the case, but only so long as there is no evidence to show otherwise.
After that, you need to prove good faith again.
On Nov 16, 2007 7:16 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 11:31 PM, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring
to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
The assumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption. We take it to be the case, but only so long as there is no evidence to show otherwise.
After that, you need to prove good faith again.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith. Which is why you have to work extra hard. It is not surprising if, given that most of us can with some ease see that you do not regret your past action, nor do you intend to change your motivation for editing the encyclopaedia, we do not choose to extend the -remarkably fragile- assumption of good faith to you. Naturally, thus, we will place you in the same category with those others - "banned users" - to whom we do not extend that good faith.
If you want to change that, you're going about it the wrong way. You can't expect saying that "all other banned users are bad, but I am not, because I did nothing really wrong" is going to change it. You may expect that accepting your past "ass-hattery" or whatever is enough, but frankly it isn't because we'd expect much more from someone who has worn out our willingness to extend good faith. So I'd suggest you either assume that your time here is finally done, or, in private, ask some forgiving individuals how to go about painstakingly recovering the community's trust. And listen to them.
RR
Quoting Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com:
I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith.
No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really don't work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse bad faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well with other people at all.
Quoting joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu:
Quoting Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com:
I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith.
No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really don't work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse bad faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well with other people at all.
Er, that should have been "We should not confuse" rather than "We should confuse"- major difference.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:37:03 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really don't work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse bad faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well with other people at all.
This is true, but once they are banned they are banned. People who are merely difficult get editing restrictions - revert parole, civility parole. Giano is still there. SPUI left, unfortunately, but was not kicked out.
Guy (JzG)
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:37:03 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really don't work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse bad faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well with other people at all.
This is true, but once they are banned they are banned. People who are merely difficult get editing restrictions - revert parole, civility parole. Giano is still there. SPUI left, unfortunately, but was not kicked out.
No disagreeement there. The point was more for clarity and context. It is important to remember that not all banned users actually have bad faith issues (of course if they don't, their likely response is to just go elsewhere. There seems to be a correlation with a lack of good faith on their part and their likelyhood to stick around and be disruptive)
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:37:03 -0500 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com:
I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith.
No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really don't work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse bad faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well with other people at all.
Well put. There is a major difference between people who you "Just don't like" as compared to people who are deliberately trying to destroy the project.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that spammers like Willy on Wheels should be let on to Wikipedia, or that sock puppet abusers and serial vandals should be allowed on. But people who are genuinely trying to do something good, but who have different views or are misunderstood somehow, should at least have some breathing room. Perhaps let the ban stick for a while, but allow a possibility.
You are missing their knowledge otherwise. And sometimes that knowledge is somewhat essential.
Quoting u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:37:03 -0500 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com:
I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith.
No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really don't work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse bad faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well with other people at all.
Well put. There is a major difference between people who you "Just don't like" as compared to people who are deliberately trying to destroy the project.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that spammers like Willy on Wheels should be let on to Wikipedia, or that sock puppet abusers and serial vandals should be allowed on. But people who are genuinely trying to do something good, but who have different views or are misunderstood somehow, should at least have some breathing room. Perhaps let the ban stick for a while, but allow a possibility.
You are missing their knowledge otherwise. And sometimes that knowledge is somewhat essential.
No, that wasn't my point at all. There are many people who are completely unable to work with others and must remained banned. The point is that that holds despite the fact they are operating in good faith.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:46:17 +1100, "Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
The assumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption. We take it to be the case, but only so long as there is no evidence to show otherwise. After that, you need to prove good faith again.
Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dorftrottel/disclosure
Whether the guy will make a success of it or not I can't guess, but you have to award him points for self-awareness and honesty.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dorftrottel/disclosure
Whether the guy will make a success of it or not I can't guess, but you have to award him points for self-awareness and honesty.
I think self-awareness is the key, so I hope he makes it. I've mentioned it on-list before, but I'm so taken with it that let me mention again the paper "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"[1].
I think this effect, known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect[2], is often at work with our more difficult participants. It's not that they go out looking to be dicks or troublemakers. I'm sure they're conscious only of the best of intentions. They come and do their best, and their best looks great to them. But not to somebody else, and so begins a cycle of trouble.
William
[1] http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:24:43 -0800, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I think self-awareness is the key, so I hope he makes it. I've mentioned it on-list before, but I'm so taken with it that let me mention again the paper "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"[1].
I believe the phenomenon was first documented in 1940 by J. Mercer, refined by R. Bloom, and brought to popular notice by F. A. Sinatra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fools_Rush_In_%28Where_Angels_Fear_to_Tread%29
Guy (JzG)
Stephen Bain wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 11:31 PM, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
The assumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption. We take it to be the case, but only so long as there is no evidence to show otherwise.
After that, you need to prove good faith again.
You are really describing a Catch-22 situation. If someone needs to prove good faith again it will best be done through his edits. Simply kissing ass with a lot of hollow promises just won't do it.
Sockpuppets and proxy editing should not be viewed as wrongs by themselves. They should only be viewed as sins when they are used in the furtherance of other wrongs. A newly unbanned user who in the past has built up an inventory of sockpuppets can only too easily use the wrong account. A person who assumes good faith should look a little more deeply when he discovers the person using the alternate account. If he uses that other account for a handful of innocent edits one should avoid jumping to the conclusion that he is somehow working underhandedly.
We should be looking for ways to build bridges with these people, not looking for minimal excuses to freeze them out.
Ec